In Comite Civico del Valle v. County of Imperial (Aug. 11, 2026) —Cal.Rptr.3d— (No. D085747), the Fourth District, in a partially published decision, reversed in part the trial court’s denial of Petitioners’ CEQA challenge to a geothermal energy production and lithium extraction project.
Key Takeaways
- An EIR must account for adequate and viable water supply for the entirety of the project lifespan.
- An EIR must discuss the effects of mitigation measures themselves where such measures would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project.
Background
The appeal involves the county’s approval of a geothermal power plant, lithium extraction facilities, and related facilities to be located near the Salton Sea. The county released a Draft EIR in June 2023, and a Final EIR in December 2023. The planning commission approved the project in December 2023, which was appealed to the board of supervisors. In January 2024, the board denied the appeal and approved the project.
Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the county’s certification of the EIR and approval of the project. The trial court denied the petition. Petitioners appealed, arguing the EIR and the record contained inadequate analysis and mitigation of water supply and air quality impacts.[1]
Appellate Decision
Water Supply
The court held the EIR’s water supply conclusions were unsupported by substantial evidence. The record inconsistently described the project’s lifespan as either 30 or 50 years. Although the project description identified a 50-year lifespan, the water supply analysis and various drafts of the water supply assessment alternated between 30 and 50 years. The final water supply assessment concluded only that the irrigation district could reasonably be expected to supply water for 30 years—and only if it received its full Colorado River entitlement. Because the court found that the EIR identified no viable water source for the remaining 20 years, it held that the record contained insufficient evidence to support the EIR’s conclusion that sufficient water is available for a 50-year project lifespan.
The court also found the proposed mitigation inadequate. The EIR stated that, if the irrigation district did not receive its full Colorado River allotment, the applicant would work with the irrigation district to address any shortfall. The county’s CEQA findings added that the project could produce groundwater, temporarily use recycled drain water, or reduce production to match available supplies. The court held that these measures were not shown to be feasible. In response to respondents’ assertion that the measures and the circumstances under which they would be needed were too speculative, the court disagreed, holding that they were reasonably foreseeable and their potential impacts should have been analyzed.
Air Quality
The court also held that the EIR did not sufficiently analyze the project’s potential air quality impacts. The EIR acknowledged that reduced inflows to the Salton Sea cause the sea to recede, exposing playa that releases dust and harmful chemicals into the air. The court found, however, that the EIR did not discuss how the project’s water use would affect water flow into the Salton Sea and potentially contribute to those impacts.
Respondents contended that the Project would not use water allocated for agriculture, and that any reduction in Salton Sea inflow was therefore speculative. The court disagreed. Because water allocated by the irrigation district for nonagricultural uses would otherwise be available for agriculture, the project would reduce agricultural runoff—the Salton Sea’s primary water source—and thus reduce inflows to the sea.
The court also determined that the EIR could not rely on the negative declaration that evaluated the irrigation district’s water supply policy, which contemplated the designation of up to 25,000 acre-feet per year of water for non-agricultural uses, for environmental review of the air quality impacts of diverting water to non-agricultural use because the negative declaration evaluated the policy’s effect on water supply, but did not provide environmental review of the air quality impacts associated with reduced Salton Sea inflows. The court therefore held that the EIR did not provide sufficient disclosure of the project’s air quality impacts.
The court thus reversed in part and remanded to the superior court with directions to vacate the denial of the petition for writ of mandate and to enter a new order consistent with the opinion. In all other respects, the court affirmed the judgment.
[1] Petitioners/Appellants also challenged the EIR’s cumulative impacts analysis, and the County’s tribal consultation under Assembly Bill 52, as well as the EIR’s analysis of Tribal Cultural Resources. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on these issues, and the opinion did not publish its discussion of them.